Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
the narrow lens of deficit reduction so the larger goal of economic growth and maintaining the health and economic security of all americans. now, there's no question that reducing the federal deficit is a worthwhile goal. nobody's going to argue with that. we need to address our nation's long term physical problem. we understand that. they affect all of us. most importantly our children and our grandchildren. their future would not be bright if they are drowning in red ink of budget deficits and soaring national debt. we understand that too. however, their futures will not be very bright if they can't afford health care or if they can't afford a quality education or if they don't have the opportunity to attain long term financial security. leaving them with less economic security by weakening social security and medicare would be just as bad, and for many people, it would be worse, and if we weaken social security and medicare to the point of their parents and grandparents to no longer live with dignity and purpose, we will be risking their futures as well. as a nation, we have to br
set our country on a path that will allow us to get our debt to g.d.p., our deficit to g.d.p. down around 3%, which is the basis of all economists left, right and septemberer all agree on the areas we can begin to grow as a country. and as my grandfather used to say with grace of god and goodwill of the neighbors, cooler heads will prevail now between now and the time we deal with the debt ceiling and we may meet the goal which we set out to do, which is to have roughly a $4 trillion cut over 10 years in the long-term deficit and to put us on that path. but i didn't come here to talk about any of those important subjects today, because as important as they allr today we have a more urgent and immediate call and that is how to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in america. you all know the statistics better than anyone so i'm not going to repeat them. on that score, i owe an incredible debt of gratitude to you at the head table and those of you in the room. i know we don't have you nan hit in this ballroom nor do we in any ballroom, but we all acknowledge that we have to do some
reduced the federal deficit even by a dollar. we are not going to get out of this overnight. this would allow us to keep reducing the deficits. we have a shared value in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. we are intent on that. host: how much of the budget does waste, fraud, and abuse make up? guest: i could go back to virginia beach, virginia, and we could identify waste every day. we will never eliminate it entirely. we can do a better job. it will take reforms. we are living longer and we have fewer people paying in. i want to protect those who are hurting the most, like art, who called in earlier. host: lester is a republican. caller: good morning. disability, 63 years old. my wife still works. $45,000 a less taw less than year. somehow someone is going to have to do something about this. guest: i agree completely. i believe it is immoral for one generation to pass on debt that dims their future. those who have served our country -- i am mindful of the price paid by our goldstar families. we're failing the young people. i am with you. i was over it. i believe when americans are gi
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
the american economy. >> steve: here is somebody who dealt with enormous deficits firsthand, the former governor of the golden state of california, arnold schwarzenegger. good morning to you. >> good morning. nice to be here again. >> brian: he sends a warning to the republicans should they back off or take on the president? >> first of all, i think i find it interesting that when you want to have more money, if you go to any financial institution, they say look, i can't pay my bills, i need more money. they want to see their payment plan. how are you going to live responsible from here on? then you can get more money. so i don't understand that why this should not be a part of the discussion because it ought to be. i think america should not just blindly go in there and keep spending money that we don't have. every single day we're spending more and more money. every year it's like $1.3 trillion more than we have and then it gets added to the debt and that's why this short period of time we have seen the debt go up. >> steve: we have a live picture of the debt now. all right, governor.
and deficit spending. those are -- >> a balanced way. i'm sure he'll use that language as well. >> a balanced way. opposing goals, but he intends to do them both. >> lynn, do you think we'll hear any talk of energy or climate change at all in the speech tomorrow? >> i do. i think climate change will be an added starter when we look at agenda goals, and i don't know if we had this discussion two months ago, even if curbing gun violence would have been something we would have thought would come up tomorrow. >> yeah. >> but i think that it is -- it is just something that the obama administration did not put a super emphasis on in the last four years and will be something that we'll hear about, in addition to the things that bill talked about. but i think somehow that obama will try to still cast himself as somebody who can try to bring more calm voice to civic discourse. i don't see how it could happen right away, because it didn't happen in the last four years. not sure how he can figure out how to navigate is this time. >> let's listen to some of the other promises made in the president's last
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)